AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SMT . A. Lavanya, OP1, was the registered owner of a lorry, make Ashok Layland (10 -wheels) dipper IVA. The vehicle was financed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. ltd., OP2. OP1 sold the said vehicle, vide agreement dated 17.05.2008 at Bellary, in favour of Sri Syed Shakir Ali, the complainant. The total consideration was Rs.14,25,000/ -. OP1 received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ -, as advance sale consideration on the date of agreement, Rs.1,65,000/ - on 20.05.2009 was and balance consideration was payable by instalments in 30 installments. It was also agreed between the parties that the loan amount already taken by Smt. A. Lavanya, OP1 from Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., OP2 would be payable by the complainant as follows : - 2 installments @ Rs.5,600/ - 14 installments @ Rs.4,900/ - 14 installments @ Rs.3,900/ -
It was agreed that after payment of the entire amount, the complainant would be at liberty to transfer the vehicle to his name or to his nominee.
IT is note -worthy that Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., OP2 was not made a party in this agreement. This is an admitted fact that the complainant/ petitioner has waddled out of the said agreement. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,42,410/ - in favour of OP2 and paid total consideration in the sum of Rs.9,07,410/ -. He was yet to pay an amount of Rs.5,17,590/ -, as per the agreement. OP2, without prior intimation, forcibly repossessed the above said vehicle. However, OP2 sent a letter dated 15.06.2010 stating that OP1 was yet to pay a sum of Rs.3,28,000/ - in respect of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The complainant approached the OP2 and asked for release of the said vehicle stating that he was ready to pay the amount due. Ultimately, when the complainant approached for settlement, he was intimated that his proposal was sent to the Head Office and the same would be settled within 4 -5 months. However, the desired result could not be achieved.
THE complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum as well as the State Commission dismissed the complaint. The State Commission held that no remedy was available for him before the consumer fora and that he should knock at the doors of the civil court or the appropriate forum. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner/ complainant vehemently argued that the petitioner is a very poor man and sympathetic view should be taken in favour of the complainant. He contended that both the OPs were working in cahoots with each other to cheat the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant further argued that there is privity of contract between the complainant and the OP2 because OP2 has been accepting the instalments from him. The complainant has produced few receipts in this respect.
FIRST of all, the complainant is not a consumer, qua the OPs. Secondly, it is a matter of accounts. It is clear that notices were sent to the OP1 by OP2. OP 1 is a consumer, qua, OP2. Complainant and OP1 entered into the agreement without the permission of OP2. Mere deposit of instalments does not make OP2 a party to the above said agreement or create privity of contract in the above said agreement. Anybody can deposit the instalments and the Financier will always welcome the same. There is no agreement between the complainant and the OP2. OP1 is not a service provider, though she will become the consumer qua OP2. The petitioner has been wrongly advised to approach the consumer court. The State Commission rightly held that he should approach the appropriate forum.
CONSEQUENTLY , we dismiss the revision petition and give him opportunity to approach the civil court, immediately. He can seek help from Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 3 SCC 583, on the point of limitation.